diff

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses the non-mutating nature ('no trae nada al repo, solo muestra') and that new files are included. It could add details about output shape or edge cases, but the core behavior is transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and workflow guidance in the second sentence. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple diff tool, the description covers what it operates on, what it includes, and how it fits into the bring_changes workflow. It does not explicitly describe the return format or the required worktree_path parameter, but the schema supplies the remaining call details.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 67%: paths and stat_only already have descriptions, while the required worktree_path is the only undocumented parameter. The description itself adds no parameter-level guidance, so it does not meaningfully exceed what the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb-resource pair: diffing what cursor-agent changed in a worktree, including new files. It clearly differentiates itself from bring_changes by stating it does not bring anything into the repo and only shows changes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly instructs the agent to use this tool 'para REVISAR antes de bring_changes', giving a precise workflow trigger. It also states the key exclusion: it does not bring changes to the repo, only displays them, so the agent knows when this tool is appropriate versus its sibling.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.